why democracy is a difficult model of governance?

Answer 1

When the people figure out they can vote themselves a piece of the pie at the expense of others, they do it. But it is still the best.

Answer 2

Democracy is difficult for a few reasons. One is that you need to have an active population. If you don't then those that are smart enough to be active control the country while the rest basically just complain a lot. There is also the fact that in a democracy you can follow the votes while making everyone unhappy. For instance say there are 3 candidates and each gets about 30% of the votes. Nobody won a majority, which really means the majority is against any particular option, but one of them will still win. Take into account how broad the spectrum of human opinion is and you run into a very serious problem of truly never pleasing anybody. Another issue is the ease of manipulating a democracy. If you can manipulate the populace you can, to an extent, control their voting. In America there used to be many parties, recently you only hear about the big two and just about any issue is attached to one side. Between the ability to use democracy to arrive at a solution that makes the majority unhappy and the ease of manipulating the system it is easy to destabilize a democracy, assuming you have the desire, means, and patience. Even if there is nobody actively trying to destroy a democracy it's tendancy to gravitate to a mob rule by a majority causes friction. Through democracy you can lose your house because the majority voted they need it. If this happens you'll get understandably upset. Now say there are a thousand people like you that get together. It's inevitable a few people there will be for the overthrow of what you see as a corrupt group. From there it goes downhill.

It's interesting to note that Americas founding fathers were actually against democracy as a long term solution, they considered it mob rule and dangerous to the rights and liberties they held is such regard.

These next two sections are copied from http://www.trimonline.org/website/deceived.htm for simplicity.

James Madison, known as the father of the U.S. Constitution, wrote in "Essay #10" of The Federalist Papers: "... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

The U.S. War Department (superseded by the Department of Defense) taught that difference in a training manual (No. 2000-25) published on November 30, 1928. This official U.S. government document, used at the time for the training of American military personnel, said of democracy:

A government of the masses.

Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of 'direct' expression.

Results in mobocracy.

Attitude toward property is communistic - negating property rights.

Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.

Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."

It went on to state: "Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They 'made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.' "

Answer 3

because there has never been a successful democracy. It always degrades into tyranny. It is the rule of the mob, and the mob can be manipulated to any degree by the government and media. That is why the founding fathers of America guaranteed the People a Republic government, which is the rule of Law and individual rights must be honored by all.